No Breach of the Code

REVIEW DECISION NOTICE

NO BREACH OF THE CODE

Reference: CCN053/13CCN_Number

Complainant: Councillor Emma Hambly

Subject Member: Councillor Richard Godden

Person conducting Simon Mansell, Principal Legal Officer, Corporate the Review: Governance

Date of Review: 2 June 2014

Complaint

On 2 June 2014 the Monitoring Officer considered a request to review the complaint from Councillor Hamblycomplainant concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor R Godden of St Kew Parish Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:

The Complainant has alleged that the Subject Member’s actions over the six months or so prior to the submission of the complaint have resulted in a number of breaches of the Code of Conduct of St Kew Parish Council and in doing so the Subject Member has acted dishonestly and failed to comply with Standing Orders.

The Complainant has suggested that the following paragraphs of the Code of Conduct are engaged;

 participating, or participating further, in any discussions, participating in any vote, or further vote and/or failing to remove yourself from the meeting while any discussion or vote takes place on a matter in which you have a disclosable pecuniary or non registerable interest;  failed to treat others with respect;  prevented someone from getting information to which they are entitled by law;  bringing your office and/or authority into disrepute

Decision

No Breach of the Code of Conduct. Reasons for the Decision

Sufficient information has been obtained to enable a final determination to be made on this matter at review and it is considered that there is no need to refer this matter for investigation.

In reviewing this complaint I have had regard to;

 the complaint as submitted by the Complainant and her request for a review and associated papers;  the Subject Member’s response to the complaint and the request for a review;  the views of the Independent Person assigned to this matter at both assessment and review;  the assessment decision notice.

In reviewing this matter I will use the same paragraph headings as were used by the assessing officer to ensure that there is a consistency in the response.

Failure to declare and interest

This part of the complaint relates to a matter considered by the Parish Council which related to a grant application for the local Parish Hall. The Complainant has stated that the Subject Member should have declared an interest in this matter as his brother sits on the Parish Hall Committee.

As part of her request for a review the Complainant has supplied an email sent by the Corporate Governance Team of Cornwall Council, which states that a brother is a sufficiently close associate to create a close association.

For a Non Registerable Interest to arise two elements have to be satisfied;

1. There has to be a close association; and 2. The interest has to affect the financial position or well being of the person with whom the Subject Member has a close association.

While the first element is satisfied as the person concerned is the Subject Member’s brother, the second element is not satisfied. As the assessing officer has set out; there was no demonstrable personal advantage to be gained from the matter under discussion to the Subject Member’s brother, and no other personal advantage to a trustee due to the financial arrangements of the trust.

As a result of this the findings of the assessing officer are supported at review. There has been no failure to declare an interest on the part of the Subject Member when a grant to the Parish Hall was discussed by the Parish Council in December 2013.

Bringing the Parish Council into Disrepute

The Complainant has set out that the Subject Member, at a meeting of the Parish Council on 10 September 2013, proposed not to correct what the Complainant has described as ‘factual inaccuracies’ in the minutes and by doing so has brought the Parish Council into disrepute. Minute 627 for the meeting of St Kew Parish Council held on 10 September 2013 indicates that the minutes that were discussed at the meeting were adopted by all of those present and voting, though it is noted the Complainant abstained.

While the Complainant may not agree with the minutes: recollections of events differ, which is why the adoption of the minutes is a matter for the Council as a whole and it is for the Council to determine what, if any amendments, should be made to minutes and then to approve them.

As a result the assessing officer’s findings are upheld and it is considered that the Subject Member did not bring the Parish Council into disrepute by proposing not to correct the minutes at the meeting of the Parish Council on 10 September 2013.

Conferring an advantage or disadvantage on a member of the Parish

In assessing this part of the complaint I support the assessing officer’s comments regarding the Subject Member’s alleged dismissive approach to the Complainant’s diagram on the visual impact of wind turbines. While this does not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct and while the Subject Member has a right to disagree with items put before him, he should do so in a manner that is conducive to good working relations within the Council.

On the main point raised by the Complainant, that is by voting for a wind turbine he was ‘voting to inflict a visual and noise nuisance on a resident of the Parish’. I have noted the Complainant’s rationale for saying she believes the Subject Member has breached of the Code by voting for the wind turbine. The same reasoning however, can be used as a counter argument in that the Complainant could have brought a disadvantage to the planning applicant by voting against the application.

This part of the Code should not be used as a means of challenging how a member has voted regardless of other opinions on a matter.

Therefore the findings of the assessing officer are supported and it is not considered the Subject Member caused an advantage or disadvantage to a member of the Parish by voting to approve a wind turbine.

Dishonesty

With regards to this part of the allegation the assessing officer’s findings are supported in that there is no breach of the Code of Conduct.

The matter which provides the background to this part of the allegation has been assessed separately, the time period for a review has passed, and it is considered that the matter is closed.

Failing to comply with Standing Orders

In considering if a breach of the Code has occurred it is a requirement that the all of the facts are viewed in an objective manner.

While I have noted the Complainant’s subjective view on the actions of the Subject Member based on her own experiences, the facts as presented are that this was a matter that was placed on the agenda by the Clerk and was then discussed by the Council. If a member of the Council including the Complainant, who seems to have been aware of Standing Order 38, was concerned by the actions of the Subject Member not following Standing Orders, they had the option to raise a point of order at the time, this was not done by anyone present.

Therefore viewing this matter objectively I consider that the assessing officer was correct in not finding a breach of the Code of Conduct and the finding at assessment is supported.

As a result of the above; the finding at Review in relation to all parts of the complaint as made is, that the Subject Member has not breached the Code of Conduct for St Kew Parish Council.

What happens now?

This decision notice is sent to the complainant, the member against whom the allegation has been made and the Clerk to St Kew Parish Council.

Additional help

If you need additional support in relation to this or future contact with us, please let us know as soon as possible. If you have difficulty reading this notice we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you, in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000.

We can also help if English is not your first language.

Simon Mansell, Principal Legal Officer, Corporate & Governance On behalf of the Monitoring Officer Date: 5 June 2014